They are all good points, Pieter.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pieter De Leenheer" <pdeleenh@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Abdoul" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <semantic-web@xxxxxxx>; "[ontolog-forum] "
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: independent semantic software evaluation frameworks? (01)
> In any case, we must not end up there...._again_.
> Ontologies are not datamodels.
AA: Correct. They are rather semantic frames for data, information and
domain knowledge. (02)
Data models are sharable between
> applications because they define an agreement on the meaning of the data
> being exchanged. Similarly, ontologies should be sharable by stakeholders
> in a community (each having their own data models and applications) by
> defining an agreement on the meaning of the various data models.
> This requires a balance between (upper) ontologies and lower ontologies:
> Upper ontologies refer to context-independent and language neutral
> concepts. Such inter-organisational agreements exist already in certain
> sectors. Lower ontologies specialise these upper ontologies for pragmatic
> purposes, such as the alignment between sectors in a certain context. The
> latter are more dependent on organisational vocabularies.
AA: Mostly correct. Upper ontologies are also designed to make a general
context, knowledge background, determining all basic meanings and
relationships involved .
> This approach of course contradicts the the network (Web) economy,that is
> characterised by the heterogeneity, distributedness, and autonomy of
> stakeholders. This may call for a methodology, i.e. a standard procedure
> to follow when reusing standards, etc.
AA: Yes. This calls for a set of common ontology and semantic standards.
> In any case the problem is rather social/cultural/organisational than
> merely technical.
AA: Metafield of science, technology, and philosophy, a sort of
trans-disciplinary problem. (03)
> On 09 Aug 2009, at 23:55, Abdoul wrote:
>> PwC: Do you sense some danger that we could have a lot of enthusiasm
>> here and end up with a lot of non-compatible ontologies? Are we going to
>> enter a period where there will need to be some sort of master data
>> model, a master ontology model effort?
> Dr. Pieter De Leenheer
> Semantics Technology & Applications Research Laboratory
> Vrije Universiteit Brussel
> T +32 2 629 37 50 | M +32 497 336 553 | F +32 2 629 38 19
> Check out my blog: http://www.pieterdeleenheer.be
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (05)